(no subject)

[vicarz]

I limp faster than most people walk, sad but true. Doc says aint nuffin broke, just hobble and take it easy for 7-10 days, take them legal drugs.

Last night was just beautiful. It was another unexpected gift, a burst mid-week, warmth where we expected cold, the moon emerging in all it's...moonitude. I've written off several gorgeous days and evenings as the season's last, only to find another around the corner. There is a lesson to be learned there - appreciate each moment as it comes, not knowing with certainty when there will be another. I'm certain of many beautiful moments to come, but I'm not going to appreciate any one less based on another yet to come. I'm going to savor every moment I can.

Ironic political note:
So we invaded iraq based on WMD including chemical weapons. While you don't see it here, the BBC is reporting our own military admitting (at long last following many denials to the arab world) we used banned chemical weapons against insurgents:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm (stolen from a couple peep on LJ like chadu)
I don't think this is the big deal people make it out to be, it might be a technicality (the US claims it uses phosphorus to illuminate and burns are incidental rather than the specific purpose) but the arrogance of the US to ignore a ban in which the entire world agrees to ban a substance as a chemical weapon, and we use it...and that's if we're telling the truth now. Of course, you won't hear about this on WTOP, FOX, CNN, or even a real network...

Comments

Re: Chemical weapons?

[chadu.livejournal.com]

Wasn't there a recent (last 18 months) dust-up over possible radioactive effects on soldiers from the low-grade radioactivity of depleted uranium? Or was it heavy-metal toxicity, and I or the article I read, got it wrong?

CU

Re: Chemical weapons?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_blackjack_/]

There are dust-ups over all sorts of things, but they rarely have actual scientific merit. The only realistic secondary hazard (i.e., other than the impact of the shell) posed by DU is to people living in the area of impact. The military seems to have underestimated the likelyhood of pulverized DU getting into the water supply or being breathed in, but radioactivity isn't the hazard.

Re: Chemical weapons?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_blackjack_/]

The real distinction is that, whatever secondary effects DU munitions may have, we aren't inflicting them intentionally. We aren't using the toxicity as a weapon.

This WP thing, however, is a pretty blatantly intentional "repurposing" as a weapon.

Thank GOD we're the good guys?

[vicar.livejournal.com]

You ever get the impression we're waging a war on the publicity front with terminology? Oh wait, that's nothing new...

Ever get the impression that it's just another western, and while everything does the same thing, the good guys are the ones in white hats?

Remember that episode of star trek with Abraham Lincoln...

Re: Chemical weapons?

[chadu.livejournal.com]

The real distinction is that, whatever secondary effects DU munitions may have, we aren't inflicting them intentionally. We aren't using the toxicity as a weapon.

Agreed. Unpon reflection, I think that the article I read was trying to make a case for DU secondary effects as being one possible cause of Gulf War Syndrome.

This WP thing, however, is a pretty blatantly intentional "repurposing" as a weapon

Yup.

CU